McCain, Oil, and War

Interesting moment:

One objection is that I think it's false to say that launching and continuing ill-conceived wars actually helps us get oil. Note, e.g., the skyrocketing price of oil in the context of our current ill-conceived war. Second, it's hard to see how a bunch of silly gas tax gimmicks are going to get us off our oil addiction. Gasoline taxes should be higher, not lower -- 100% of the revenue could be spent on the American people, but 50% of the cost is paid by oil companies and oil producers.

Comments

Since when did someone steal John McCain and replace him with Noam Chomsky?

Also, note he said that he would work to free us from "oil from the Middle East", not "an addiction to oil".

Obviously he's banking on some sort of combination of opening ANWR, Canadian oil sands, Brazil deep ocean deposits and drilling in Teddy Roosevelt's head at Rushmore more than doing something like subsidizing research into advanced solar heating techniques in the Arizona desert.

Posted by calipygian | May 3, 2008 4:29 PM

"One objection is that I think it's false to say that launching and continuing ill-conceived wars actually helps us get oil"

I guess it depends on who 'us' is. If you're Exxon- Mobil, then it does help. Prior to the Iraq war, Iraq's oil was owned by French, Russian, and Chinese oil companies. Now, Exxon- Mobil is able to bid on that oil. It doesn't really make much difference to the consumer, but it makes a huge difference to the oil companies. Of course, that doesn't really mean that war is the best way to go about it. Despite their losses in Iraq, China has been able to increase their access to oil. And they did it by simply signing contracts, which is a much more cost-effective way to do it.

Posted by fostert | May 3, 2008 4:33 PM

This Presidential campaign is getting strange. Now we have the Republican candidate admitting this was a war for oil, and the Democratic candidate calling for taking a second look at Social Security funding. What's next, a third party candidate calling for a return to the gold standard?

Posted by Kit Stolz | May 3, 2008 4:35 PM

Matt--

While it's true that our ill-conceived wars don't get us oil, oil is still definitely a huge part of why we launch them.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | May 3, 2008 4:44 PM

While it's true that our ill-conceived wars don't get us oil, oil is still definitely a huge part of why we launch them.

Correct. He's not saying we need to fight Middle East wars to get oil; he's saying we have our wars because we already get our oil from the Middle East. The oil sales are what allow otherwise tinpot regimes like Iraq and Iran to cause trouble for the US, to threaten their neighbors, to build WMD, etc. We fight in the middle east in order to prevent them from doing those things, but if oil was no longer such a valuable commodity, we would not need to worry about it.

Posted by right | May 3, 2008 5:04 PM

Correct. He's not saying we need to fight Middle East wars to get oil; he's saying we have our wars because we already get our oil from the Middle East. The oil sales are what allow otherwise tinpot regimes like Iraq and Iran to cause trouble for the US, to threaten their neighbors, to build WMD, etc. We fight in the middle east in order to prevent them from doing those things, but if oil was no longer such a valuable commodity, we would not need to worry about it.

I don't buy this.
There are few countries outside of Sub-Saharan Africa poorer than North Korea.

Posted by WillieStyle | May 3, 2008 5:09 PM

We fight in the middle east in order to prevent them from doing those things, but if oil was no longer such a valuable commodity, we would not need to worry about it.

So...John McCain is not just going to get the US to stop using oil from the mideast, he's going to get the entire world to do so?

Pretty impressive. I might vote for him myself.

Posted by 23456 | May 3, 2008 5:12 PM

Gas taxes need to be higher? Raise them to $1 per gallon and then people will start buying flex-fuel cars and filling up with corn-derived ethanol, because it will finally be cheaper. Then we can become the Opec of corn. The rest of the world can fight wars for food, and we can denounce them for it.

Posted by Fred | May 3, 2008 5:26 PM

Matt is certainly right to point out the actual and potential impact of war, unpredictability and insecurity on oil prices; and to remind us that a consequence of this kind of impact is that fighting a war to get oil, even an ultimately successful war, doesn't necessarily improve one's position.

But that shouldn't lead us to ignore the manifest fact that it makes a great deal of difference to all of us who owns the world's oil supplies, as well as who owns, operates and profits from the infrastructure and industries involved in pumping, refining and delivering oil products around the world.

It matters because it has much to do with how many of the petrodollars that we and others pay out for oil make their way into the American economy; it matters because it has something to do with the degree of control we are able to exercise over the price; it matters because it bears on the reliability of our supply during possible future conditions of global stress or war, including the supply for the military; it matters because it impacts the degree to which others are or are not able to use oil as a weapon or tool of leverage over us; and it matters because it is relevant to whether we ourselves will have the potential to use oil as a weapon or tool of leverage over others.

I don't see why this McCain statement has generated controversy. It is perfectly obvious that if the states in the Persian Gulf region and its immediate neighborhood did not sit on such a large portion of the world's oil proven oil reserves than we wouldn't pay those states a fraction of the attention we do now.

Posted by Dan Kervick | May 3, 2008 5:48 PM

Right on, Matt! How pathetic is Hillary Clinton on this issue? She should have been joining with the rest of the Democratic party in denouncing what is in effect a tax giveaway to oil companies who are already wallowing in cash. Instead here she is endorsing the economic policies of the GOP nominee who admits who knows nothing about economics. If this is the kitchen sink strategy, then somebody needs to pull the plunger.

Posted by Ron | May 3, 2008 6:05 PM

MY - One objection is that I think it's false to say that launching and continuing ill-conceived wars actually helps us get oil. Note, e.g., the skyrocketing price of oil in the context of our current ill-conceived war.

Matt and Fostert have a child-like faith in "open global commodity markets" - as if they are immutable and will remain supplying any global customer with money no matter what.
Europeans and Asians are more realistic. They know that both world wars involved embargoes of oil, strategic minerals, food for their citizens. We nearly starved the Germans into submission in WWI, and in WWII, we almost did it to the Japanese.
First Britain, then America sought to keep those global markets Matt takes for granted open, mainly through Naval supremacy. The two nations 90 year presence in the Gulf reflects their belief that keeping global goods flowing is vital. America was strong enough that even the two oil embargoes had little effect because we knew, if we absolutely had to, we could break the oil nations militarily and restore oil shipping.

In part, the Iraq War is about maintaining US strategic access to resources - something those that believe the UN or "some law" guarantees are woefully misinformed about. It is naive to believe the "oil will always flow" to anyone paying the appropriate price. (The price of grain rose in WWI as we were selectively starving the Germans. Just as it would not be an economic hardship for OPEC to starve tiny Israel and anyone giving them oil of oil while keeping 85% of their production going at even higher prices. They don't because they know the US would use it's military.)
If anything, Iraq has forced the US to rethink it's huge expenses it has largely borne itself - in keeping oil flowing not only to itself, but to competitor nations like China, which has a free ride in assured oil supplies...

Dan Kervick also had an excellent post that details why this is a far deeper issue and our actions are driven by far deeper concerns than the impact on oil price of just our being in Iraq..

**************
Gas taxes need to be higher? Raise them to $1 per gallon and then people will start buying flex-fuel cars and filling up with corn-derived ethanol, because it will finally be cheaper. Then we can become the Opec of corn. The rest of the world can fight wars for food, and we can denounce them for it.
Posted by Fred

Fred, your being an asshole and not recognizing the ethanol scam has been well-debunked in recent years. Scientific American ran a study that showed that using corn vs. oil gained only slight CO2 abatement, that Brazil cutting down rain forest for ethanol actually increases CO2 generation. The same study showed that if the US used it's entire corn crop, it would replace only 12% of current oil use. And without taxpayer subsidies going to millionaire agribiz fatcats, ethanol is twice as expensive as gasoline.

We will not be the "OPEC of Corn" because not only would starving people in other lands be profoundly immoral - how long do you think it would take hungry Americans paying 7 bucks for a loaf of bread and 25 bucks a pound for hamburger as well as ethanol at 8 bucks a gas-equivalent gallon to revolt and burn down either Congress or the mansions of the Ethanol Kings?
Right now, synth fuel from coal is estimated to cost 55 bucks a barrel. Oil from shale, oil sands slightly more. A little discussed fact is that the Agribiz lobby has joined with the Left in trying to block those alternatives. As well as any new oil exploration.

The worst in blocking any new energy sources on NIMBY are the left-leaning Reps from California, New York, Blue parts of Illinois, and all of New England. I would like the US to have a policy that in an energy shortage, that they are Last in Line for energy after citizens of states that do their part.

But the ethanol scammers day is almost done....

Posted by chris ford | May 3, 2008 6:44 PM

What fostert wrote.

Why assume that Bush has, or McCain would, act out of solidarity with the American People, instead of solidarity with oil companies and the Really Rich?

Posted by Bruce Wilder | May 3, 2008 6:45 PM

There are few countries outside of Sub-Saharan Africa poorer than North Korea.

That's a pretty bogus counterexample. North Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship that spends 30%+ of its GDP on the military -- and they had an extremely difficult time building nukes. They are only able to do this because China prevents the Western powers from intervening. Were, say, Mozambique to try the same thing, you'd see a very rapid intervention in the name of "democracy".

So...John McCain is not just going to get the US to stop using oil from the mideast, he's going to get the entire world to do so?

Well obviously he doesn't have a magic-bullet solution, but he's articulated the correct end goal: a world that does not depend on Middle Eastern oil for its energy needs. If American R&D can discover a superior (i.e. cheaper) energy source, the Middle East would be much much less of an American foreign policy problem.

Now McCain, like a typical politician, is casually overstating his case and implying he will end the dependence during his term of office. This is obviously nuts, and if pinned down on it I imagine he'd admit as much.

Posted by right | May 3, 2008 7:10 PM

Here is Candidate Clinton in 2005 on CBS using the same language McCain used in his 100 year gaffe. This was in an interview with Bob Scheiffer. Marc needs to find the video for this and then we can here how vetted she really is. How could McCain's 100 year remark be used against him if she is the nominee. You'll have her bashing McCain and then show her praising what McCain said.

What is amazing about candidate Clinton's candidacy is she is rising even though she is a neocon in an anti war party. Just shows America loves dynasties. I am convinced voters are voting for Bill Clinton and not her.

Sen. CLINTON: If I could just add to what Senator Graham said, because I think it's really
important we underscore this.

Senator McCain made the point earlier today, which I agree
with, and that is, it's not so much a question of time when it comes to American military
presence for the average American; I include myself in this.

But it is a question of casualties.
We don't want to see our young men and women dying and suffering these grievous injuries
that so many of them have.

We've been in South Korea for 50-plus years. We've been in Europe for 50-plus. We're still in Okinawa with respect to protection there coming out of
World War II.
You know, we have been in places for very long periods of time.

And in recent history, we've
made a commitment to Bosnia and Kosovo, and I think what is different is the feeling that
we're on a track that is getting better and that we can see how the Iraqi government will begin
to assume greater and greater responsibility. The elections were key to that. The training,
equipment, equipping and motivating of the Iraqi security forces is key to that.

But so is our
understanding that if we were to artificially set a deadline of some sort, that would be like a
green light to the terrorists, and we can't afford to do that.

Dailykos poster had the scoop:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/3/11457/02274/191/508327

Posted by David | May 3, 2008 7:34 PM

The confusion over oil and Iraq lies in Greg Palast's discovery that there were two opposing factions among the Iraq war mongers: the neocons and the oil companies.

The neocons wanted to take Iraq oil so they could break OPEC.

The oil companies did NOT want that to happen, but DID want to gain control of Iraq's oil so they could control the availability as well as their own access.

See here:

Bush Didn’t Bungle Iraq, You Fools
http://www.gregpalast.com/bush-didnt-bungle-iraq-you-fools/

Keeping Iraq's Oil in the Ground
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/061406J.shtml

Secret US Plans for Iraq's Oil
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031705A.shtml

Money Quote from the first article:

""It's about oil," Robert Ebel told me. Who is Ebel? Formerly the CIA's top oil analyst, he was sent by the Pentagon, about a month before the invasion, to a secret confab in London with Saddam's former oil minister to finalize the plans for "liberating" Iraq's oil industry. In London, Bush's emissary Ebel also instructed Ibrahim Bahr al-Ulum, the man the Pentagon would choose as post-OIF oil minister for Iraq, on the correct method of disposing Iraq's crude.

And what did the USA want Iraq to do with Iraq's oil? The answer will surprise many of you: and it is uglier, more twisted, devilish and devious than anything imagined by the most conspiracy-addicted blogger. The answer can be found in a 323-page plan for Iraq's oil secretly drafted by the State Department. Our team got a hold of a copy; how, doesn't matter. The key thing is what's inside this thick Bush diktat: a directive to Iraqis to maintain a state oil company that will "enhance its relationship with OPEC."

Enhance its relationship with OPEC??? How strange: the government of the United States ordering Iraq to support the very OPEC oil cartel which is strangling our nation with outrageously high prices for crude.

Specifically, the system ordered up by the Bush cabal would keep a lid on Iraq's oil production -- limiting Iraq's oil pumping to the tight quota set by Saudi Arabia and the OPEC cartel.

There you have it. Yes, Bush went in for the oil -- not to get more of Iraq's oil, but to prevent Iraq producing too much of it."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 3, 2008 7:37 PM

Chris Ford,

I'm well aware of the downsides of corn-derived ethanol (though I disagree with your criticism of Brazil's more-efficient sugarcane-derived ethanol). Those downsides aren't why E-85 isn't widely used here (outside of parts of the Midwest). The reason is that it isn't cost effective. The purpose of my post was to point out an unintended consequence of the big increase in the gas tax that Matt is clamoring for (you are aware, I presume, that many of the policies lefties clamor for have consequences they never consider, right?). One consequence will be increased use of corn-derived ethanol, because it will become cheaper than gas.

Posted by Fred | May 3, 2008 7:39 PM

To Matthew Yglesias:

I think this dailykos story has legs. It would be great for you to post on it. Lets see the vetted candidate Clinton have to answer for this.

To Obama supporters out there. Get this story out there.

Posted by David | May 3, 2008 7:41 PM

"Matt and Fostert have a child-like faith in "open global commodity markets" "

Thank you Chris. I've been accused of many things in my life, but that is certainly a new one. In reality, I tend to think that global commodity markets are heavily manipulated by government policies and that the government policies are heavily manipulated by private corporations. The only real faith I have is that greed will always prevail. And there's a lot of evidence to back up that faith.

Posted by fostert | May 3, 2008 8:21 PM

right: If American R&D can discover a superior (i.e. cheaper) energy source, the Middle East would be much much less of an American foreign policy problem.

Hence the need to stay in Iraq for 100 years. Gotcha.

Posted by 23456 | May 3, 2008 9:15 PM

You know the commodity traders have to unwind the oil push at some point and my guess is the unwind date is whenever the U.S. figures out the show is all through in Iraq. The price push on oil is nuts, if there was true scarcity doubling prices over and over again there would be scarcity somewhere.

This isn't great from a climate standpoint, but if you are hoping the price of oil is going to beat people into consuming rationally I think you are going to be disappointed.

Posted by Ed Marshall | May 3, 2008 10:43 PM

Ed Marshall is right to this extent: as long as the American public think they have a divine right to somebody else's oil (what does, "Nuke their ass and take the gas" mean, otherwise?) - and the military to get it - they're not going to change.

Watch McCain get elected over Iran this year because if it comes down to attacking Iran for Cheney's oil vs having to give up the SUV, they're going to elect McCain.

If we had no state, the oil crisis wouldn't exist in the first place and any price increases from Peak Oil would be eliminated by the free market shifting to alternative energy sources. As it stands, the state is owned by the oil companies (among others), so there will be no shift until the oil is literally exhausted and no more money can be squeezed out of the electorate for it because there isn't any more.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 3, 2008 11:28 PM

So, was it Kuwaiti freedom? Nope. The American economy. WMDs? Nope. The American economy.

Truth to power? cynical humbug from a wannabe? or an old man's private rantings seeping to the surface?

YOU BE THE JUDGE!

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 4, 2008 12:09 AM

One consequence will be increased use of corn-derived ethanol, because it will become cheaper than gas.

Well, no. Since corn-derived ethanol depends upon oil for its existence, any increase in the price of oil will boost the price of corn-derived ethanol.

Corn-derived ethanol is an example of the belief in a Free Lunch.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 4, 2008 12:15 AM

The only real faith I have is that greed will always prevail. And there's a lot of evidence to back up that faith. [emphasis added]

No.
Often. Even, maybe, usually.

But absolutes like "always" fall to a single counterexample. And I'm sure that you can come up with counterexamples to this generalization just as well as I can. And I can.

(Although, I admit, there are fewer since Reagan seduced the US to The Dark Side.))

Posted by joel hanes | May 4, 2008 2:21 AM

"Well, no. Since corn-derived ethanol depends upon oil for its existence, any increase in the price of oil will boost the price of corn-derived ethanol."

Read this slowly so you understand it. I. Agree. That. Corn-derived ethanol. Is. A. Bad. Idea.

Got that part? Great. Now: If Matt Yglesias's wish comes true and the tax on gas (gas = gasoline, not oil) gets raised high enough, then corn-derived ethanol will become more economical than gas. At that point, corn-derived E-85 will become the fuel of choice of American motorists.

Posted by Fred | May 4, 2008 2:43 AM

Her sitede TÜRK Bayrağı kampanyasına destek olmak için TÜRK Bayrağı Bandını sitene ekle. Hem kampanyaya destek ol hemde HİT kazan.

Posted by PiriketSeverler | May 4, 2008 3:07 AM

Fostert - The only real faith I have is that greed will always prevail. And there's a lot of evidence to back up that faith. [emphasis added]

Ideology trumps greed. If it wasn't for the US military, Israel would have been throttled to death by a complete oil embargo, with every non-greedy Muslim happy to accept some personal economic deprivation so the extinction of Zionism happened.
We see that open or "free" markets cease to exist overnight if major war starts, that suspension of free market trade of strategic commodities - as economic warfare can be prelude to real war, or in non-war cases - nations come to ideological consensus that sanctions or embargoes will be slapped against a recalcitrant or pariah nation. (Apartheid Africa, US embargo against Japan pre-WWII, Israel boycott now in it's 4th decade, the lame US Cuba trade ban.) These quick dispellings of the fantasy that all goods flow globally and freely without armed force blocking or backing their flow is fantasy.
Nor are good short-term substitutes available for strategic goods like rice, oil, soybeans, RAM chips.

Posted by chris ford | May 4, 2008 3:09 AM

"Ideology trumps greed. If it wasn't for the US military, Israel would have been throttled to death by a complete oil embargo, with every non-greedy Muslim happy to accept some personal economic deprivation so the extinction of Zionism happened."

You think the U.S. military is coercing Muslim countries into selling oil to Israel? Israel gets its oil from Russia, the 'stans (which may be nominally Muslim but aren't nutters), Africa, Mexico, etc. It gets a small amount from Egypt as well, but this was a condition Israel demanded for giving Egypt back the Sinai, which had a few producing oil fields.

Posted by Fred | May 4, 2008 3:31 AM

How stupid does she think we are?

Oh yeah . . .

Posted by aleks | May 4, 2008 5:44 AM

Where do people get the notion that we are trying to secure oil in Iraq and Afghanistan?

It is so silly (Chomskyesque, really)

The american public doesn't think they have a divine right to anyone's oil - that is laughable. All this talk about "addiction" and blood for oil are lefty drama at its worst.

We're we in Somalia for oil? Are we killing alQuaida in somalia now for oil?

If the idiot Norman Mailer were still alive, he'd say we were in Vietnam due to our "oil addiction".

(I do think I have a right to buy oil that is under the hooves of caribou in alaska, but maybe that's just the rationalization of an addict...)

Posted by Jozef | May 4, 2008 8:33 AM

Where do people get the notion that we are trying to secure oil in Iraq and Afghanistan?

It is so silly (Chomskyesque, really)

The american public doesn't think they have a divine right to anyone's oil - that is laughable. All this talk about "addiction" and blood for oil are lefty drama at its worst.

We're we in Somalia for oil? Are we killing alQuaida in somalia now for oil?

If the idiot Norman Mailer were still alive, he'd say we were in Vietnam due to our "oil addiction".

(I do think I have a right to buy oil that is under the hooves of caribou in alaska, but maybe that's just the rationalization of an addict...)

Posted by Jozef | May 4, 2008 8:33 AM

Where do people get the notion that we are trying to secure oil in Iraq and Afghanistan?

It is so silly (Chomskyesque, really)

The american public doesn't think they have a divine right to anyone's oil - that is laughable. All this talk about "addiction" and blood for oil are lefty drama at its worst.

We're we in Somalia for oil? Are we killing alQuaida in somalia now for oil?

If the idiot Norman Mailer were still alive, he'd say we were in Vietnam due to our "oil addiction".

(I do think I have a right to buy oil that is under the hooves of caribou in alaska, but maybe that's just the rationalization of an addict...)

Posted by Jozef | May 4, 2008 8:34 AM

*** BREAKING NEWS ***

Transcript 178.09

It's official, the McCain camp is heavily leaning on Governor Huckabee to provide him a source of direction to tap into the feelings of the average American citizen.

John McCain: "I will have an energy policy, that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East."

Mike Huckabee: "Every time we put our credit card in the gas pump, we're paying so that the Saudis get rich — filthy, obscenely rich, and that money then ends up going to funding madrassas," schools "that train the terrorists," said Huckabee. "America has allowed itself to become enslaved to Saudi oil. It's absurd. It's embarrassing."

"Mike Huckabee struck the right cord when it comes to what the average American is facing these days. Senator McCain is extremelly comfortable with Governor Huckabee. John and Mike are working together to take plays out if Mike's play book. Both of them are teaming up to what looks like a match made in heaven."

Are you saying McCain has made his decision about his VP running mate?

"Well, it's not official, but you can't find a closer team than this one. John is so comfortable with Mike, they just click together. It's like a lego block, it's a perfect match."

End Transcript 178.09

Posted by News Source | May 4, 2008 11:49 AM

if i'm reading McCain's "thoughts" correctly, then his campaign slogan will be "after iraq, no more wars for oil."
i'm not really sure how that would fly.

Posted by dj spellchecka | May 4, 2008 2:00 PM

Was he wearing a flag leapel pin? I didn't see one.

Posted by maryQ | May 4, 2008 2:10 PM

Was he wearing a flag lapel pin? I didn't see one.

Posted by maryQ | May 4, 2008 2:10 PM

There's a big difference between "fighting a war for oil" and "fighting a war for cheap gas." Who the fuck said we were fighting for cheap gas? We're fighting so the oil companies can charge $110 for something that it costs them less than $40 to produce -- sometimes a whole lot less. This war is for two things: strategic control of oil and high profits for the oil companies. That has less than nothing to do with cheap gas for you and me.

Posted by Egypt Steve | May 4, 2008 2:27 PM

The major oil companies (The seven sisters as they used to be called) have nil control over the price of oil

Government-controlled oil companies in Russia, Saudi, China, Venezuela, Iran , etc control infinitely more of the world's proven reserves than do the majors.

It is an Oliver Stone/Noam Chomsky fantasy that multinational oil companies are in a position to pull strings and topple governments. When I hear people talk that way I know I am listening to an idiot.

Posted by Jozef | May 4, 2008 5:45 PM

Let's suppose that all restrictions on drilling for oil were removed so that the oil companies could drill anywhere the felt like. How many barrels of oil per day would result? Mr. Cheney, and his energy task force never answered that question. If the answer is 1/2 million barrels/day, this would have no effect on oil prices or dependence on ME oil. If the answer is 2 million barrels/day, then we may have something to talk about. In the absence of a reasonable estimate, it is tilting at windmills to argue about drilling.

Posted by SLC | May 4, 2008 8:39 PM

"Let's suppose that all restrictions on drilling for oil were removed so that the oil companies could drill anywhere the felt like. How many barrels of oil per day would result?"

SLC,

There aren't just restrictions on drilling, but restrictions on exploration. Without exploration, you can't answer that question. How many barrels of oil did anyone guess were off the coast of Rio de Janeiro before the giant Tupi and Carioca fields were discovered? Brazil would have never discovered those if its leaders were as opposed to oil exploration as American Democrats are.

Posted by Fred | May 4, 2008 8:52 PM